In another interview with his longtime atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis claims that Hell does not exist and that condemned souls just “disappear.” This is a denial of the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of Hell and the eternal existence of the soul.

The interview between Scalfari and the Pope was published March 28, 2018 in La Repubblica. The relevant section on Hell was translated by the highly respected web log, Rorate Caeli.

…

First things first: this place, perrinlovett.me, is no longer a mere blog; it’s a highly respected web log. Get that straight. I may add that to the subtitle…

Second, wow, okay…

Please read on through the link for the Vatican’s response. They say, the Pope says, the report is false and the relevant quote was taken out of context. That may be. It is supposed that the translator/publisher has it out for His Eminence. That also may be. Much may be.

As important as this topic is, or seems, Ecclesiastically speaking, I honestly had not put much thought into it. I’m trying here; bear with me…

Assuming the worst, that the quote is correct and does adequately convey the Pope’s thought, then the matter still does not directly affect God The Father, Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, nor the independent relationship of the faithful with The Trinity. It would, however, throw one helluva (pseudo-pun) into the expected, mandated guidance from the Church. The worst being true would amount to a betrayal of the past 2,000 years, and of Jesus. That, bad as it would be, could be cured. But, wow … lamentable is not even the word.

Back to not making assumptions terminal in nature: the remark, true or not, was a remark to a friend. It is not Canon nor does it invoke Papal Infallibility. The Vatican’s response seems to bear that part out.

I’ll just add that the choice of this particular friend, an atheist friend, is interesting. “There is no Hell” sounds like something an atheist would say and accept. It’s not Catholic. It’s not Christian. It’s not even of any “faith” at all.

The concern is that Francis is an Anti-Pope, one destroying, or trying to destroy, the Church. If that’s the case, there is a remedy for it. I really do rely of Christ’s assurance to Peter that Hell (must exist, huh?) shall not prevail. However, as I’ve noted before, that doesn’t mean the Devil won’t try. I’m not sure that we have at hand an Anti-Pope (let alone an Anti-Christ). I am sure this Pope from time to time strains the patience.

Just as his choice of confidants is a little telling so is his previously expressed philosophy. The latter would almost seem more like communism, globalism, post-modern worldy-ism, even, yes, atheism, than Christianity and adherence to Western Civilization. In one, brief juxtaposed example: the current Bishop of Rome chastises gun owners in America for crimes they did not commit while, simultaneously and seemingly, ignoring crimes committed all around the V.C. Do as I say, not necessarily as we do here at Saint Peter’s…

Again it tries the patience. I, being so tried, and tired from it, turn this over to Pat Buchanan, who luckily put more thought into it all that I have:

Did the soul of Judas, and those of the monstrous evildoers of history, “just fade away,” as Gen. Douglas MacArthur said of old soldiers? If there is no hell, is not the greatest deterrent to the worst of sins removed?

What did Christ die on the cross to save us from?

If Francis made such a statement, it would be rank heresy.

Had the pope been speaking ex cathedra, as the vicar of Christ on earth, he would be contradicting 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine, rooted in the teachings of Christ himself. He would be calling into question papal infallibility, as defined in 1870 by the Vatican Council of Pius IX.

Questions would arise as to whether Francis is a true pope.

…

So many questions. This one is definitely going to develop further. We have one damnable mess on our hands. (Done with puns now). I, as leader of this Highly Respected Web Log, actaully dispatched, this Friday, an agent to Rome – though I fear his investigation will probably center more on local eateries and smoke shops.

“On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland,” Ingraham said on Twitter. “For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how ‘poised’ he was given the tragedy. As always he’s welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion.”

Ingraham, a staunchly pro-Trump commentator, came under fire on Wednesday, when she tweeted out a story from the right-wing website Daily Wire about Hogg’s rejection from four different colleges.

“David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it,” she said. “(Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.)”

The backlash was swift and widespread, and Ingraham was denounced for ridiculing a teenager and survivor of a mass shooting.

I did not know that Ingraham had offended Hogg, whom I refer to as “Young Hogg” and who is most certainly NOT a crisis actor. I also did not know he was rejected from four colleges. That really is a shame – especially if he has a 4.1 GPA. (Still trying to get my head around GPAs North of 4.0. Progress?)

I’ll remind Young Hogg that the same kinds of people who push gun control in America are the very same kinds who will happily deny a promising, 4.1 GPA’d white male student a place in a university. That’s not how diversity works these days. As a bonus reminder to Ingraham, the same types frequently deny all things Holy, the Week included. This almost makes perverse sense: no right to bear arms; no right to higher education. It’s really an education in itself. For those who will see it.

At first I thought this was an Oscar ballot… Young Hogg/Twitter.

When it comes to robbing Americans of their rights, Hogg, being young and impressionable, usable even, is forgivable like so many of his class. To a point. He’s a younger version of those like JP Stevens and Larry King (Zieger) – of a class not so easily forgiven.

First he says he was at Parkland (Douglas), hiding in a closet, camera in hand, during the shooting. Then he said he was at home a few miles away, returning with camera once he found out about the shooting. Either way I’ll give him the cherished label of “victim” – close enough.

But he runs dangerously close to becoming a perpetrator when he pushes the communist narrative of disarmament on the masses. Victims can victimize too.

So, who really owes whom an apology in all of this?

I’m neither looking to give one nor receive one. Pick a number? I’ll go with 2, as in Second.

[…] “I want to make several things very clear. A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do. On the contrary we were convinced she did know. She may not have known what day, or what location, but she knew. However, we were not tasked with deciding if she was aware of a potential attack. The charges were aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice. I felt the both the prosecution and the defense did an excellent job presenting their case. I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements. The bottom line is that, based on the letter of the law, and the detailed instructions provided by the court, we were presented with no option but to return a verdict of not guilty.”

Conservatives, liberals, voters: I present you with “your” government. And, actually, a decent, by the letter jury. Doubly astounding.

The widow of the gunman who killed 49 people at a gay Orlando nightclub was acquitted Friday on charges of lying to the FBI and helping her husband in the 2016 attack.

Noor Salman, 31, began sobbing with joy when she was found not guilty of charges of obstruction and providing material support to a terrorist organization, WKMG reported . Salman was married to Omar Mateen when he attacked the Pulse nightclub. Police killed him after the massacre.

Prosecutors said Salman and her husband scouted out potential targets together — including Disney World’s shopping and entertainment complex — and she knew he was buying ammunition for his AR-15 in preparation for a jihadi attack. She knew that he had a sick fascination with violent jihadi videos and an affinity for Islamic State group websites and gave him a “green light to commit terrorism,” prosecutors said.

Defense attorneys described Salman as an easily manipulated woman with a low IQ. They said Salman, who was born in California to Palestinian parents, was abused by her husband, who cheated on her with other women and concealed much of his life from her.

Attorney Charles Swift argued there was no way Salman knew that Mateen would attack the Pulse nightclub because even he didn’t know he would attack it until moments before the shooting. His intended target was the Disney Springs complex, prosecutors said.

Only about three percent of federal criminal cases make it to a trial. And, of those, only about three percent result in acquittals or dismissals. Amazing odds and not necessarily suggestive of “justice.”

Was there justice in this case? There’s really no telling these days beyond, here, a prima facia “yes.” My guess is that the jury may have been fed up with the way the government prosecutes criminal cases or this particular one at the least. It could have been a failure to make a case, to present any evidence. I’m certainly aware of none other than the allegedly coerced “confession.”

But it could as easily have been fatigue with a system that utilizes lies to convict for “lies.” A system run by a government with a history of lying, fabricating evidence, concealing evidence, battering witnesses, and indeed coercing statements. A system operated by a government usually as in bed or deeper in bed with associated criminals as the accused. As a reminder: this case confirmed the long-standing rumors about Mateen’s father, international terrorism, and the FBI.

Maybe these 12 people perceived the Deep State in action and did what they could, what they thought right. It would be interesting to poll or interview some of them.

Acquittal aside, this story may still be developing. If so, then more here.

One person has died after a driver reportedly swung an ax at a group of people and ran over them in San Francisco.

At least five people were struck in a vehicular hit-and-run in San Francisco’s Dogpatch neighborhood, near the intersection of Illinois and 24th Street, according to San Francisco police.

The driver fled the scene but was later taken into custody near Alemany Boulevard and Cayuga Avenue, police said. Four of the five victims were in “life threatening condition,” according to SFPD, and one later died after being transported to a nearby hospital.

The incident occured around 10:25 a.m., police said.

One witness said a driver in a white GMC van had an argument with a man on the sidewalk and a few other people intervened. The witness said the driver got out of his vehicle and had an ax.

A second witness also said the driver had a small ax and that the people involved in the argument chased the driver back into the van. That’s when the driver drove into the people on the sidewalk.

Police said they don’t know the relationship between the injured and the suspect, and they do not believe there is a threat to the public at this time.

“No threat to the public” kind of sounds like “not terrorism,” which suggests strongly it might have been. That or a case of California feloniam fecerit sanctis.

Lord! What am I saying?! I certainly do not mean to impune the character of the actual suspect. You did this, axe and auto owners of America! One dead and four wounded. Happy now? #enoughisenough.

Here’s a little hysteria to get the youth marching:

An axe (aka “ax”) is, for those of you in Manhattan, a bladed weapon, one nominally used to fell trees (those large bushy things in Central Park you don’t like). Bladed weapons in America are used, in an average year, to murder several times as many people as are murdered with all types of rifles and shotguns combined. And, as bad as that number is, it is usually 20-25X behind the number of Americans killed annually with motor vehicles.

Where is the outrage? NACA, if it exists, could possibly pour tens, maybe even scores, of dollars into lobbying politicians to get what it wants. And what it wants is dead children. No word on the age of today’s fatality victim but he was, at some point, someone’s child.

Think of the children.

And then get them marching. And chanting. With signs. With agents, deals, and magazine covers.

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Come on, Stevens! In your lifetime? The man has seen a lot. He surely remembers the Civil Rights Movement, the Civil War, and the Children’s Crusade of 1212. Like that latter episode, the current hubbub is as misguided, nefarious, and sure to be as ill-fated.

I’ve covered gun control previously and the kids’ march especially. While not backing off the issue I’ve urged restraint towards the young, uninformed, and naive children. However, I’ve said that those behind the mania should be held to account. Stevens falls into that category. I actually welcomed his editorial position as I figured, aged or not, he is among the very best the grabbers could offer.

I am sorely disappointed.

There’s nothing there. At all.

A sufficient counter argument to this tripe is: BULLSHIT!

Now we have that all settled…

It’s funny, almost. First, Stevens ran his editorial on a digital system – see that above link. This is 21st Century news. It’s different from older newspapers, say, from the 18th century. It’s kind of like the difference highlighted by the Times’s feature picture:

NYT. Yes, as corrected, that’s a musket up top….

Their point, his idiotic point, is that the one weapon was available when the 2A was enacted. The other, being a modern creation, was not and, thus, is not protected. Funny.

By the same illogic, the Times’s website, to say nothing of what you’re reading here and now, is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s not free speech nor free press. The only real, legal newsprint is print. If you don’t get news on low quality paper with blotchy ink from some young boy on the street corner, then you’re as bad as the NRA killing all those kids they never kill.

It’s also almost funny that the left wants to repeal something that, for an age, they denied existed. I appreciate their newfound honesty but it’s a little late in coming. They literally used to say the 2A wasn’t really part of the Constitution – despite it’s being right there in black and white. Conversely, they had no problem seeing Abortion floating in some nebulous prenumbra. Maybe one needs a bow tie to see it all clearly.

Prior to 2010 or so most Con Law textbooks were utterly devoid of any mention of the 2A. A few, like Lawrence Friedman’s, may scant mention, usually with a bare citation to Miller v. US (1939).

Why repeal something that’s not even real? My guess is a case of bad losering.

Stevens rests much of his “argument” on Miller. Liberals love to pretend that was the only court decision on the 2A prior to the 21st century. It was not. But it was perhaps the worst decided and most misinterpreted. So the Nine said civilians had no right to non-military quality arms. What does that mean? They didn’t say but one could easily extrapolate that, under their reasoning, only military-grade weapons qualify for legal protection against infringement. Probably not what the left had in mind. Of course, what the Court had in mind in 1939 later fell apart factually. In Vietnam soldiers made copious use of short-barreled shotguns. Hmmm.

At any rate, Heller and MacDonald cured the question of “does the Second Amendment really say what it plainly says?” It does.

And, again maybe it’s the age thing – dunno, but here Stevens violates his own canons of legal interpretation. His approach, as detailed in The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Interpretation, J. P. Stevens, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, April, 1992:

Read the Statute

Read the Whole Statute

Read the Text in Contemporary Context

Look into Legislative History

Use Some Common Sense

Taking the 2A as what it is, a Super Statute, and applying those rules, one reaches an incontrovertible conclusion: the thing is what it is and means what it says. 1) the language is unambiguous. That should be the end of it. But: 2) it fits with the rest of the Bill of Rights. 3) Temporizing the thought, either then or now, it fits with the idea of individual liberty. 4) the Founders demanded an armed citizenry as deterrent of tyranny. 5) What do the various facts tell us?

No question should remain after the first four steps are utilized. If, however, one needs more proof to affirm the meaning and intent by number five, then one should analyze what’s going on with guns in America. Here, as with most logic, the left fails completely.

The facts tell us: armed citizens still stand in the way of tyrants; guns save lives; the innocent lives lost to guns are: few, offset by the many saved, only part of the greater number of regrettable homicides annually, tiny in comparison to lives lost to other means/things, etc.; having the highest number and percentage of private guns in the world, the US still has one of the lowest gun murder rates on the planet, and; even with all those guns, and with all the hideous social, economic, and legal changes in the country, there has been no great or noticeable change in gun usage of late.

But why look at the law and the facts? Heck, that’s what judges do. Maybe it’s better to listen to young know-nothings scream about anecdotes. Maybe it’s better to blame the NRA for things it had nothing to do with. Promote a little fear. A little hysteria. Some lies.

And, for what? The Second Amendment will not be repealed any time soon. Good luck assembling a Convention of the States. Better luck getting super majorities in Congress and the State Houses. They can’t even get more “meaningful” gun control through in regular statutory form – though they try.

What would the Stevens’s Amendment say? A plain repeal? How would that work or be worded? “The rights of the people are hereby infringed.” That’s what he’s suggesting. The natural right to arms is independent of any amendment or law. It’s just that in some places it is infringed upon, violated. Simply repealing the 2A would not necessarily ban guns from private hands.

Maybe he means to include that ban explicitly in the new language. “The right is infringed and the people are barred from keeping and bearing arms.” Perhaps there could be a specific exemption for 18th century antiques or the swords and slings of Stevens’s youth…

I’m glad Stevens spoke up. It’s good to know what the enemy is thinking, what they want. They want to disarm you and leave you utterly helpless before their other plans and actions. Once more, see the thoughts, words, and acts of [pick your favorite murderous dictator from history].

In his final decade on the Court Stevens voted to extend at least some basic rights to Americans declared and held as enemy combatants, enemies of the government and the people. That might work out well for him. Some, like Vox Day, suggest Stevens has, via his First-Amendment-unprotected speech, committed treason and should be arrested for it. Debbie Gun Control-Schultz (and any co-signers) too. It’s a strange new world we’ve entered. I’ll leave that alone except to say: 1) enemy combatants do not have to be arrested..., and; 2) hey, Stevens is old, 97 going on 1,000; why bother?

If this was their best, then their best won’t do. A rock group told me so. However, now that they’re being honest about the thoughts and desires, we had best keep an eye on these anti-freedom types. Freedom: defend it or lose it.

*This subject shall be the focus of a video retort for FP tomorrow, likely to be linked and reposted here. Stay tuned.

Shelly is a cute little guy, with a plastic shell, wiggly legs, and a series of LEDs that light up to express its repertoire of simulated emotions. But Shelly is more than just a toy. It’s a tool designed to help children understand that while robots may not feel pain or hurt feelings the way humans do, mistreating them is not okay.

If a child hits or squeezes Shelly — or tries to pry apart its shell — the sensor-studded turtlebot pulls its noggin back into its shell and doesn’t come out again for 14 seconds.

I’m thinking a twenty-pound sledge-hammer and Shelly will clam up for longer than 14 seconds.

This is how they get you to accept the loss of jobs and then the eventual extermination. With a turtlebot. It’s not the eradication of humans. It’s robot abuse… Dear Gawd, if people accept this… Is this what teevee has done to the brains?

Anyway, as I was saying, they get you with this little fellow (almost cute in a doped-up, Japanimation kind of way):

Then this not-so-little fellow steps in for the kill:

Maybe in his next book or op-ed Stevens could float a ban on these things. They’re not our friends. There is no reason to be kind to them. Unless, of course, we kill them with “kindness.” So long as they die.

Hmmm. John Paul Stevens has turned to treason. Or is it merely senility? Either way I’m trying to find stuff in the paper archives. Maybe on the older PC…. I want to answer the old traitor’s Op-Ed in the Times – which, by the way, is neither protected as free speech nor press under the First Amendment. I’m sure you know why.

Anyway, whilst I hunt for whatever that was … here’s a brilliant bit from Taki Theodoracopulos on the apparent demise of a club that was probably always too good for me: